Questions about Columbia - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2003, 04:11 AM   #16
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:31 AM
There are boundaries and there are boundaries. I dont care what the context, intention or subject matter it is, making light of or joking about such things is really shameful.

Nice try Diamond.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 05:11 AM   #17
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 11:31 AM

Sweetest Thing is right, there were a few alternative options but ground analysts did not deem the problem significant enough to merit such measures. I believe there is the ability in NASA to fast track a shuttle launch for rescue purposes. Atlantis could have been made launch ready within a few days, and with a crew of two would've had enough room to ferry all Columbia's astronauts back to earth. Of course this would've meant the cancellation of alot of double-checking and testing to ensure the safety of Atlantis.
__________________

__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:15 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:31 PM
I haven't read this entire thread but i will try to answer this to the best of my understadning



Columbia is the oldest of the orbiters. It took it's first flight in 81 and thusly is as old as I am.

It is too heavy to dock with the space station it's not designed for International space station missions Unlike atlantis and discovery.

Columbia has also flown less missions than atlantis and discovery makign this very curious.


to the best of my knowledge NASA did have escape pods on the rockets in the case of apollo 13 the pod was damaged on lift off. The shuttles do not have that same ability because 1.) in fact...it wasn't feasible at the time they were built....the explanantion involves a lot of theory that I don't understand maybe someone can enlighten us.



as for this lift off theory...this is a common occurence during lift off. Foam insulation often hits the tiles...the issue is..did it fracutre a tile this time...and if so why?...these tiles are your regular kitchen tiles they are very durable.


remember it was a faulty O ring...a gasket essentially that brought challenger down. It doesn't take a lot to make a shuttle mission go wrong. It could be something as small as a frayed or compromised wire that caused this.


Richard feynmann was the guy who found that the O ring was the cause of the challenger incident....I wish we had the use of his skills today.


I will close with this...a tile problem is the MOSt likely thing that can bring a shuttle down like this. The shuttle frame is made of aluminum take a lighter to a pop can and its malleable at that temp you can imagine what the temps or reentry would do to it. heat dissipation and sinking is the most critical system of a shuttle during reentry. Damaged tiles essentially make the shuttle the equivalent of a candy bar over your gas stove


Now even last year an expert testified before congress stating that in fact he was more worried about astronaut safety now than after the challenger tragedy because of budget cuts he believed that the orbiters were not properly retrofitted in a manner fitting to the wear and tear that they go through.



incidentally....to show you how far we've come....your desktop PC has approxmiately 500-600 times the computation ability that the telemetry system on the apolo 11 had and I believe that's a conservative figure perhaps even by a factor of 10




but then again I'm no expert..I want to be a neurosurgeon..not a rocket scientist
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 11:14 PM   #19
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 11:31 AM
I thought Apollo 13 didn't have escape pods. It was made up of three areas: The command module (the pod they returned in), the Lunar Exursion Module (aka the LEM) and the engine. The engine was damaged during the cyro stir and cut down a lot of their power. Thus, the astronauts were forced to abandon the command module and use the LEM as a lifeboat, as it used less energy to run. As well, NASA didn't want to run the command module to much, as they weren't sure if it had been damaged and wanted to save energy for reentry and course correction burns.

Quote:
I wanted to ask you if you think intersteller travel for humans to other star systems would ever be possible in the distant future? Also, along the same lines, do you think it will ever be possible for humans to live independently and indefinitely in space?
I ask these questions because we know that in 500 million years, it may not be possible to live on Earth itself do to changes in the sun.
I don't even think the earth will sustain humans that long (500 millions years). There are too many problems, global warming, nuclear war...we may just destroy ourselves.

Okay, but is interstellar travel possible? I think the first question is: is it affordable? I personally think that we could have reached Mars by now, if NASA had had the interest and funding. After John Kennedy made his promise to beat the Russians to the moon, America acheived that goal in just under 10 years. However, NASA - and the entire space business has taken some draaaaastic pay cuts the past few years.

So, first they'd have to develop the technology. Then they'd have to find a stellar system capable of supporting life. They've discovered a few alternate systems, but no one is quite sure how stable they are, planet composition, etc etc etc. These things are too far away to even observe...everything looks like a giant star even through satellite images.

The problem is that other systems are so far away. I mean, I think it takes 10 years alone to reach Pluto. So they'd either have to devise a ship with resources that could sustain people that long, or else find a faster way to travel. Light speed? Perhaps. But we don't have the technology to do that...yet.

I think one day humans WILL be able to live outside of earth...mars, the moon, etc. A moon circling Jupiter was found to have water. So who knows? I think, that in 500 million years, they will have developed this technology.

Look how far we've come in just over 50 years. 1950-present. A lunar landing. The space shuttle. The international space station. Satellites. Technology is booming. It's too early to tell what will happen 500 million years from now. I would like to think that yes, it will be possible. Although I think that living on alternate planets would be the last resort..I can envision attempting to save earth a larger priority. But who knows? When the need comes, we'll see (well, maybe) where all this technology has taken us.

To infinity and beyond!


Khanda...what's a track program? Hey...could you ask your dad about how tech. has advanced on the spacecrafts since the Apollo missions? I'd love to hear an 'insider's' opinion on all this.
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 11:33 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:31 AM
sorry..
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 01:37 AM   #21
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing
Khanda...what's a track program? Hey...could you ask your dad about how tech. has advanced on the spacecrafts since the Apollo missions? I'd love to hear an 'insider's' opinion on all this.
oh, the first question is easy cuz i know it.

it was something they experimented with in some florida schools. the traditional school is where you'd go the typical 180 school days a year. here in the south, we'd start back in mid to late august (usually a few days after my birthday, 8/15) and go until late may. there's a few holidays interspersed here and there.

then there's single track. all classes are on a slightly altered schedule from traditional schools. the summer break was shorter, as we'd go until june. we'd have two week breaks every so often. we'd still have all the same holidays, but the summer break was shorter. it was believed that the summer break was too long because it gave students three months to forget all about what they'd learned the previous year. too much time was being spent reviewing things in the beginning of the year. the school i went to in orlando, boggy creek elementary, started doing this in like 1990. i loved it. you'd be sick of school and could tell yourself, "next week i'll get a two week break!" it was awesome.

lastly, there's multi-track, which is what we had at challenger 7 elementary. there were five tracks. this was created to help teach more students with less classrooms. every grade had one class for each track. but, there were four classrooms. how could this be? because one of the tracks was always on vacation! it was kind of a pain because occasionally you'd have to switch classrooms or something, but it was fun because while everyone else is in school, you're out. it worked perfectly.

the track system really worked well, because as i mentioned before, i never had a chance to get sick of school, because we were always having breaks. sure, it was kinda lame to not be out as long as usual during the summer, but for those who started out with it in the first place wouldn't know any difference. it is a pain and a waste of time to review all the previous year's material because three months is a long time and if you go without learning that long, you will start to forget stuff. i know in college i'd often forget stuff in between my fall and spring semesters, and that's just a month.

anyway, i'll ask my dad about the space shuttle stuff tomorrow when he gets home from work.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 10:47 AM   #22
Refugee
 
Desire4Bono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: living in a rock and roll fantasy- and what's wrong with that?
Posts: 1,921
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Right. I was just coming here to say that. They make it sound like such a dilapidated, outdated piece of shit that was literally falling apart. So WHY did they send people up in it? Of course nobody ever thinks anything tragic will ever happen but that doesn't mean it won't. Every caution should have been taken. When they saw the damage on liftoff maybe they could have sent another shuttle or the Russians to get them down? I'm sure they would if they could do it over but those 7 people don't have that chance Better safe than sorry, hindsight does not save lives.
__________________
Too bad,
the things that make you mad
are the things that I love

Brandon Boyd

-Incubus
Desire4Bono is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 08:03 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Desire4Bono
Right. I was just coming here to say that. They make it sound like such a dilapidated, outdated piece of shit that was literally falling apart. So WHY did they send people up in it? Of course nobody ever thinks anything tragic will ever happen but that doesn't mean it won't. Every caution should have been taken. When they saw the damage on liftoff maybe they could have sent another shuttle or the Russians to get them down? I'm sure they would if they could do it over but those 7 people don't have that chance Better safe than sorry, hindsight does not save lives.
well the same shuttle that slew in 1981 is not quite the same columbia that fell apart over teh sky..I mean almost all of it has been replaced at some point.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 03:45 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Saw in the newspaper todat that they have indications that the shuttle was hit by some litter floating in space. Might not have been the foam or faulty tiles at all.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 04:50 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:31 AM
I got to hold a space shuttle tile today. It only weght 7 oz.

I was surprised how light and fragile they are.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 07:21 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 11:31 AM
It was in my paper today that Va. Senator George Allen, who was friends with a brother of one of the crew, claimed that the brother said he had recieved several emails during the mission about how worried the crew was about the damage and how they took pics of it. NASA denies it.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 02-06-2003, 08:20 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I got to hold a space shuttle tile today. It only weght 7 oz.

I was surprised how light and fragile they are.
Attached Thumbnails
pict0040.jpg  
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 10:42 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Desire4Bono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: living in a rock and roll fantasy- and what's wrong with that?
Posts: 1,921
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Normal

Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V


well the same shuttle that slew in 1981 is not quite the same columbia that fell apart over teh sky..I mean almost all of it has been replaced at some point.
But still they keep saying how OLD it is, oldest in the fleet, and how heavy, and how they saw the pieces coming off on takeoff. They are the ones leaving that impression, not me, that's where I got it. I know from driving old cars that even if you replace most of the functional parts, there is still metal fatigue, structural wear and tear and body deterioration.
__________________
Too bad,
the things that make you mad
are the things that I love

Brandon Boyd

-Incubus
Desire4Bono is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:38 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Most of us who fly regularly go about in airplanes that are 30 years old... or even older. And I would think that NASA engineers are trained way better to look for defects in a space shuttle, compared to an airplane mechanic. Of course I know that there is way more technology in a space shuttle than in your standard 737, but I think the comparison works. We can't quite compare it to a car however, which would typically last about 15 years at most. The vast majority of us simply put gas in when the tank is empty, and get the oil changed every 3000 miles. Other than that, we only get something fixed when it is obvious that something is wrong. Nothing could be further from the amount of care that NASA takes of its space shuttle fleet.

Right now they are looking at a structural flaw in the left-side wing. I'm sure their theory will change at some other point, but since it was the wing that began to disintegrate first, the focus will be there for the time being.
__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:43 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
well the same shuttle that slew in 1981 is not quite the same columbia that fell apart over teh sky..I mean almost all of it has been replaced at some point.
Yep. And all of it is incredibly well-maintained. You could go buy a brand new, hand-built, McLaren F1 supercar, and it would still have many more flaws than any space shuttle.

It just that when you're flying at Mach 18, those flaws tend to escalate the problem.
__________________

__________________
Foxxern is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com